Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1957786. ; Size: 261K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Can a student whose editing eye is driven by anxious self-checking, overwhelmed by the concern for whether another student treated an identical issue the same or differently than he has, really provide valid feedback on whether the student author has met the intended audience’s needs? This working paper suggests that, despite its pitfalls, peer evaluation in the legal writing classroom can be designed to achieve the best goals of the peer-editing exercise while at the same time reduce the anxiety and free students to more fully discover audience. One design that has the potential to create a safer, more authentic environment for peer evaluation is one in which students work on different problems. This would remove some of the competitive social comparison inherent in a peer editing exercise where students are all working to reach the same “answer.”